|
I am deeply sorry for you and your wife.  
Zaphod
|
|
|
|
|
I have no idea where he got the 4-6 months BS. He's also full of it on "natural immunity". No one has spent the time and effort to determine the length of time the immunity lasts if you've actually had this virus in your system.
He's also not telling you that it's estimated that over two-thirds of the human race is naturally immune in that their immune systems deal with this virus without assistance.
|
|
|
|
|
So, where did this bit of data originate?
|
|
|
|
|
Stupid newspapers.
When scientists write their papers on clinical studies, they write that the people in the study has retained their antibodies for four months.
Newspapers then scream, "Antibodies last only four months!!!"
They have learned now though, in last paper I read they wrote that people in their trial retained their antibodies at least six months.
But the damage is already done I'm afraid.
|
|
|
|
|
It's probably factually true for what they know.
In another year they might be able to say it's good for 16-18 months, and a year after that for 28-30 months etc.
How will they really know until Covid's been around long enough.
|
|
|
|
|
a combination of ignorance (we don't have data past about half a year on how long protection will last over time), and being confused about anti-body levels (which always decline steadily over time) vs overall immune response (which long term is based on immune cells 'remembering' something as a threat) that's much harder to quantify in the lab.
The US Govt's in the process of recommending a booster shot after 8 months (starting next month) based on a combination of indications that protection might be starting to fall off by then or that a longer interval between first and 2nd doses gives stronger protection (the Israel vs UK data for break-through infections with delta fits both theories). For the broader population (vs those in high risk groups) that might be premature; and from a global public health standpoint almost certainly is: Until protection tends much closer to zero, getting initial doses to people who haven't had anything yet will reduce the global case rate and thus the likely rate of new variants evolving more than minimizing risks in the rich world even more. But what else is new...
Did you ever see history portrayed as an old man with a wise brow and pulseless heart, weighing all things in the balance of reason?
Is not rather the genius of history like an eternal, imploring maiden, full of fire, with a burning heart and flaming soul, humanly warm and humanly beautiful?
--Zachris Topelius
|
|
|
|
|
If you look at the COVID Live Update: 209,172,688 Cases and 4,391,012 Deaths from the Coronavirus - Worldometer[^] you will notice that the US is the leader, I wonder why?
We do not have the highest population.
We have excellent health care.
We are better fed then most.
We have access to the most advanced drugs.
Could it be because;
We don't want to be herded and forced to get a vaccine?
As some I know profess; I've done my research and masks are not effective?
I'm not a sheeple, I'm going to go on as if nothing is the matter?
Everybody else is wearing a mask so I don't have to, I'm protected?
Get the damn shot.
The less you need, the more you have.
Even a blind squirrel gets a nut...occasionally.
JaxCoder.com
|
|
|
|
|
SeeSharp2 wrote: And he said natural immunities from getting Covid only last 3-4 months. Crazy.
Sigh! 
Natural immunity is when you can't be infected with viruses whose normal host is a cactus. That happens for example when your cells receptors are incompatible with the virus.
Normally you retain antibodies for up to 18 months. You can't keep antibodies against every disease you have been exposed to during your life, your blood would get to thick.
Therefore we have something really nifty called "memory B-cells" that remembers the decease and will start mass producing antibodies next time you get infected. These B-cells normally functions for approx 20years, or up to a lifetime for certain deceases.
There is no reason to believe this will work differently for Covid. No matter what you read in some newspapers.
When you're freshly jabbed or really recently have been sick, many people will have so many antibodies that you will have so called sterilising immunity. You won't notice you got infected and also probably aren't infections.
Later you will get sick, but your immune system (memory cells) will recognize it immediately and start killing it off before you get badly sick. It will be more like a cold.
When you get old, the immune system will not work as well as it used to, just like the rest of your body  , and you might need booster shots.
|
|
|
|
|
So I'm not allowed to be rude in this forum so consider yourself castigated for being a fool. Even if you don't believe/care yourself then get the second shot for the rest of us. Or just stay at home - permanently.
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity -
RAH
I'm old. I know stuff - JSOP
|
|
|
|
|
Even those who are fully vaccinated can catch it and pass it on, and can be asymptomatic. This will be the case forever, given that it's a coronavirus and therefore ends up having many variants, like the cold or the flu. So your castigation is inappropriate. If you're so scared, you're the one who should consider staying at home.
|
|
|
|
|
<snicker> I live in an area, Cairns Oz, where we have had 1*3 day lock down since the start of the pandemic so scared is not the issue. Common decency is to reduce (note: not eliminate) the exposure of the community. Not wearing a mask or isolating when required and not getting vaccinated is just bloody selfish.
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity -
RAH
I'm old. I know stuff - JSOP
|
|
|
|
|
Your area is blessed, unlike Victoria, which must have a staggering number of bloody selfish bastards.
|
|
|
|
|
SeeSharp2 wrote: It's hard enough to get people to vaccinate but now you want them to do it every 4-6 months? It doesn't feel like it's ever going to happen.
Is it really such a huge leap from an annual flu shot to a biannual Covid booster shot?
SeeSharp2 wrote: I'm not sure it's even worth me getting the second dose now. If I do get Covid, it's unlikely to be bad.
I'm not sure it's worth me sticking to the speed limit through the school zone. If I do run into a child, it's unlikely to injure me.
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
Well said Richard - I see his/her account has been disabled
"I didn't mention the bats - he'd see them soon enough" - Hunter S Thompson - RIP
|
|
|
|
|
That seems extreme, he got his shot, wasn't necessarily against it, but was simply questioning whether it's worth it.
Can't say I disagree with him.
An annual flu shot for the elderly is not the same as a biannual COVID shot for an entire population.
Getting a shot that may have severe side effects is also not the same as sticking to the speed limit or wearing a seat belt.
I'm also not keen on driving an hour to get a shot that protects me against something that likely isn't going to be a big deal for me, every six months, possibly twice.
He wasn't rude or anything, just asking a question.
This seems more like cancel culture or political censorship, agree with us or be banned 
|
|
|
|
|
Ask the admins - I can't see why it should be disabled either
"I didn't mention the bats - he'd see them soon enough" - Hunter S Thompson - RIP
|
|
|
|
|
AFAIK, no user has the power to disable an account. If it was closed due to abuse reports, it would show as closed, not disabled. I suspect one of the hamsters has put him in a "time out" for some reason.
Sander Rossel wrote: I'm also not keen on driving an hour to get a shot ...
You'd hope that by the time the booster shots are needed, they would be available from your local GP, or even in your local pharmacy, in the same way as flu shots are currently.
Having said that, I've seen how well our lot have coped...
Sander Rossel wrote: ... that protects me against something that likely isn't going to be a big deal for me ...
But potentially a very big deal for any elderly or vulnerable people you might pass it on to.
Take whatever chances you want with your own health. But when your choices affect other people's health, then we have a problem.
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
Local authorities here estimates the protection period a bit longer, up to a year.
"God doesn't play dice" - Albert Einstein
"God not only plays dice, He sometimes throws the dices where they cannot be seen" - Niels Bohr
|
|
|
|
|
The "flu" vaccine needs to be taken every year (apparently). I knew people doing that into their 90's like religion; worked for them.
It was only in wine that he laid down no limit for himself, but he did not allow himself to be confused by it.
― Confucian Analects: Rules of Confucius about his food
|
|
|
|
|
They can only say 4-6 months because the vaccines have not been approved for much longer and there is not yet "proof" that they protect longer. It does not mean that they don't protect for longer, just that they can't know for sure.
And like anything biological, it will differ vastly from person to person. Some (a small minority) won't have any protection, some will have an immunity for much longer, and some will be in between. Even if the protection decreases after 6 months, you might still be better protected than with no vaccine at all.
Unfortunately, when something is that new, it limits what we actually know (and it goes for this disease at least as much as for the vaccines for it).
|
|
|
|
|
They want us to get a booster shot after 8 months. So you are protected for at least 8 months. Was it worth it? Well, 1.6% of the people that got Covid-19 in the USA died from it. A larger percentage have "long hauler" symptoms that may never go away. Who knows what other weird issues may show up. It's a virus, sometimes problems show up years later.
|
|
|
|
|
These three words get tossed around randomly at times. Often interchangeably. I get really confused by some articles To me they have three different definitions. Here is my take, what is yours.
1. A Property can be either a Parameter or Field.
2. Parameters have get and set.
3. Fields are declared and that is it. Mostly simple atomics but can be instances of enums or lists or etc.
I know this may be oversimplified this is gist of it.
So many years of programming I have forgotten more languages than I know.
|
|
|
|
|
It may depend on the language in use, but what you list is not entirely correct for C#.
Edit:
1. A Property can be either a Parameter or Field. -- No, a Property may or may not be backed by a field, but has nothing to do with parameters
2. Parameters have get and set. -- No, that's Properties.
3. Fields are declared and that is it. Mostly simple atomics but can be instances of enums or lists or etc. -- Sorta, but a field may be any type. (Though there may be restrictions I'm not thinking of right now.)
modified 17-Aug-21 14:39pm.
|
|
|
|
|
I was talking about C#
So many years of programming I have forgotten more languages than I know.
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
